CC BY
163
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
UDK 338.2:334.7 Гафурова Г Т., Ахметшина Е. Р.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11435/2108 С. 17-33.
G. T. GAFUROVA,
PhD (Economics), Associate Professor
Institute of Economics, Management and Law (Kazan), Russia,
E. R. AKHMETSHINA,
PhD (Economics), Associate Professor
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
OF STATE-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MECHANISMS DEVELOPMENT
Objective: to study the experience of developed European countries in the organization of public-private partnership.
Methods: the theoretical research methods were used: analysis, synthesis, and historical method.
Results: basing on the study of experience of the UK, France and Germany, the strengths and weaknesses of different models of public-private partnerships were revealed, as well as the features of their organization under specific economic and historical conditions.
Scientific novelty: for the first time, the sectoral and financial features of the public-private partnerships organization in different economic systems were systematized.
Practical value: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in the development of Russia's state policy in the field of creation and financing of public-private partnership projects.
Key words: public-private partnerships; public policy; UK; France; Germany; Russian Federation; development institutions; economic development; developed countries; developing countries; foreign experience.
Introduction
Currently, public-private partnership (PPP) arouses much interest as a form of interaction between state and private business. This is due to the fact that in many countries it allows to efficiently solve important social and economic problems by uniting the state and private sectors’ resources.
Due to the larger and longer experience of the state and private business interaction abroad, than in Russia, the modern Western economists have thoroughly investigate the main PPP features and principles. However, the project financing mechanism has been analyzed to a less extent, as well as the features of attracting the institutional investors’ funds. The PPP issues and impact on the national economies’ development have been researched in the following works by foreign authors:
D. A. Aschauer [1], R. Bain [2], A. Bonaccorsi, A. Lip-parini [3], A. J. Bytheway [4], Y. H. Kwak, Y.Y. Chih, C. W. Ibbs [5], A. De Meyer [6], G. Dhillon [4], M. Ged-des [7], С.Т. Hill, J. D. Roessner [8], L. Jezieruski [9], J.-J. Laffont, J. Tirole [10], J. T. Metzger [11], P. Murphy [12], M. H. Riordan, D. Sappington [13],
M. Roll, A. Verbeke [14], I. Strange [15], R. Walker, T. E. Smith [16].
Also, a significant contribution to the development of PPP concept was made by the later works of the trend founders, like Bucove et al [17], J. T. Dunlop [18],
S. H. Linder [19], M. O. Stephenson [20], A. G. Yeh [21].
The issues of theory and methodology of state and business structures interaction were researched in the works by A. P. C. Chan and E. Cheung [22], Ke et al [23], P. T. I. Lam [23], S. Wang [23], Tang L. [24].
Research results
To ensure the PPP projects implementation in Russia, one should analyze the most common ways of state and private interaction in the foreign practice.
The world history offers many examples of public-private partnerships. Some countries have already fully estimated the advantages of PPP. There are international institutions studying PPPs, their promotion and improvement. Among them are the European PPP Expertise Centre
17
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
[25], The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships1, and others.
Besides, there are many development institutions, engaged in the general issues of entrepreneurship development at international and regional level. They also pay a lot of attention to PPP development. The largest of them are:
- International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD);
- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD);
- Islamic Development Bank (IDB);
- International development Association (IDA), etc.
In many market economy countries development
institutions are created at national level, for example:
- Industrial Development Bank of India IDBI);
- China Development Bank (CDB);
- German Development Bank (KFW);
- Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC, etc.).
These institutions mainly promote projects in transport, special and energy machine building sectors. Special attention is paid to aircraft construction and space industry. Some institutions finance projects in agriculture, ship building, metallurgy, etc. [26].
1 Please refer to URL: http://www.ncppp.org/
The global experience witnesses that the more developed the country, the larger share of socially-oriented sectors in its PPP projects (Fig.1).
On the contrary, in the countries with less developed social protection, shorter life expectancy, and weak infrastructure, more attention is paid to the projects in road building, electro energetics, etc. Such structure is quite understandable - an economically underdeveloped country will try to develop various economic sectors first of all.
However, in the recent years even the developed countries have been switching towards infrastructural projects. Although education and healthcare are still leading in financing, they gradually yield to other proj -ects. For example, most PPP contracts in Europe in 2011 were signed in the sphere of education, but in 2012 -in transportation system (Fig. 2).
As we can see, the number of PPP projects have been reducing. According to the European PPP expertise center, the financing was also educing. This is partly due to the unstable economic situation in many European countries after the 2008 crisis. There was some recovery in 2013, when the volume of contracts increased by 27 %.
In general, the international practice of PPP projects implementation shows that their main spheres are:
- transportation infrastructure, including building, maintenance and servicing of roads, motorways, airports, railways,;
- housing and communal services - canalization, garbage disposal, maintenance and servicing of housing;
Г
100%
80% --
0%
60%-------
40% - -
20%------
um
members of the “Big other developed countries countries with economies developing countries seven” International club in transition
health
□ education
□ road
other
Fig. 1. PPP projects’ structure by sector in the countries with different levels of economic development [27]
18
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
r
□ education
□ public service
□ transport El health
■ public order and safety
J
Fig. 2. PPP projects’ structure in Europe by sector [28]
- ecology venues - water treatment works, extracting and processing of natural resources;
- construction and maintenance of real estate, including housing, public and social infrastructure;
- public services in the sphere of public order maintenance;
- communication, including forming the telecommunication infrastructure and services rendering;
- education, including construction and maintenance of schools, equipment with necessary infrastructure, and participating in joint educational projects;
- healthcare - participation in healthcare measures, elaboration and implementation of new technologies in this sphere, elaboration of medical products (Fig. 3).
Thus, in general the global practice shows that there are three main spheres of PPP projects’ implementation -education, healthcare and road construction.
The above data show that PPP is globally considered to be one of the promising and efficient directions of state functions’ implementations. However, one should bear in mind that the development of PPP and its further existence largely depend on the vitality of the goals set by
accommodation facilities airports bridges and tunnels defense education health
innovative technologies leisure activities easy Skytrain ports prison Railways road
social housing street lighting housing and communal services recycling water treatment plants
/////////////////A 75
3 4 ШШ1 21
21
’////////////////А 7777777777777777m 7777777777777777771 77777777777777777^ Ш1 216
34 34 47
'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSi
□ 5 77777* 17 77777* 17
ЩЗ 15 34
7777777* 21
0 50 100 150 200 250
Fig. 3. Number of PPP projects implemented globally, by sector [29, с. 51]
19
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
the participants, on the accuracy of predictions and on the actual will of the state to develop the PPP mechanisms.
The efficient implementation of PPP projects demands the clear “rules of the game”, i.e. the legislative regulation of PPP and the system of interaction between the state and business. In most countries this interaction is ensured by the state federal bodies in cooperation with specialized bodies. As foreign experience shows, most fails in PPP projects implementation are connected with the drawbacks of the project structuring [30, с. 9], the problem can be solved by creating a clear structure of interaction between state bodies and private organizations, and consultations of the specialized center in the sphere of PPP [31, с. 113].
Creating of the specialize body can help promote clear interaction between state and business. Such bodies have been created in many countries, but their objectives and functions can differ, in general, these functions are as follows:
- Coordination of the activity of state bodies, participating in PPP projects preparation and implementation.
- Financing (co-financing) of the projects.
- Consultations for PPP participants on the project elaboration and managing.
- Participation in the elaboration and improving of draft laws in the PPP sphere.
- Expert analysis of the planned PPP projects.
Some examples of such specialized bodies’ functions
are given in Table 1.
Irrespective of the specialized body functions, the PPP significant development is only possible when the highest state power bodies strongly support the PPP projects, strive to develop economy and ensure social development through PPP mechanisms. Further we will consider the features of PPP projects’ implementation in different countries and the role of the state in their development.
The international practice of partnership development shows that there are national features, expressed bin the degree of legislation rigidity and the existing typical interaction models of the state and the private sector. We can highlight two main approaches to forming the PPP mechanism at national level [33]:
1. “Anglo-Saxon” (USA, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia) approach is based on the rigid system of state control over contract implementation and purposeful maintenance of the stable competitive environment in the national economy.
2. “Latin” (France, Germany) approach is based on the policy when the infrastructure, culture, healthcare, education, social services are kept as the state property, while the private companies can only be delegated the functions of maintenance and servicing the property, an rendering services to the population.
The European leader in the number and volume of PPP projects in Great Britain. The PPP is also significantly developed in France and Germany, which have rich traditions in PPP projects in different spheres.
For example, Great Britain had 48 % of all PPP projects implemented in Europe in 2012 (Fig. 4).
Great Britain is among countries who were the first to highly estimate the PPP possibilities. The main state body, operating PPP projects on behalf of the state, is Partnership UK. This is a joint stock company. The state share in the company is 49 %, the share of business is 51 %. The personnel is not state servants, they are paid not from the state budget, but depending on the number and volume of the implemented projects. This body interacts solely with the state sector and serves mainly as an agency on project elaboration. All PPP contracts must be approved by Finance Ministry in several stages before the final signing of the agreement [34, с. 47].
Table 1
Functions of the specialized bodies on PPP [32]
Information and recommendations Consultations and financing Certification
Country and title of the PPP body Resource center Recommendations on PPP Consultation on specific projects Project financing Project elaboration Control over contract implementation Project analysis and certification
Great Britain: Partnerships UK (since 1996), now Infrastructure UK V V V V V V V
Australia. Victoria state: Partnerships Victoria (since 1999) V V V - - V -
Canada. British Columbia: Partnerships ВС V V V - V V -
South Africa: Finance Ministry body (since 2000) V V V V - - V
20
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Austria Poland Italy Belgium Spain The Netherlands Germany France UK
я
3
mmmrmwmrmwmww ягтатагтат аммлмммл
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
ед.
Fig. 4. The number of PPP contracts signed in Europe in 2013, by country [35]
The first significant project in Great Britain was implemented as early as in 1981. Its was reconstruction of the London docks. After the successful completion of the project, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) program was established in the country.
The program provides financing of infrastructure projects with participation of private capital. According to the program, private investors participate in the constructing and using the object, which is intended for state services. The object is often constructed by the private investor, then compensating the expenses by the right to use the object during certain time, or by compensation from the state budget. PFI projects are implemented in such spheres as automobile and railway roads, schools, military quarters, hospitals, etc.
Education (mainly schools) is one of the key sectors of PFI program. Currently Great Britain needs repairs of schools for over £7 bln 144 projects for £4,1 bln (13 % of the total) have been implemented already. For example, the Jo Richardson Community School was built by PFI program. This is the first school built in 40 years in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham - one of the poorest London districts. The school now has 1300 students from 11 to 18 y.o., 80 % of which are from poor families [36].
Besides education, PPP projects are actively implemented in the sphere of sport. A good example is 2012 Olympic Games in London. In 2003 in Elmbridge, when three municipal sport centers became unpayable, a PPP project was set to build a new venue.
The new center was built by “DC Leisure” company, which had won a tender, for just £12,8 bln, and the annual expenses of the municipality were reduced 3,2 times, which saved Elmbridge more than £6 mln during 15 years. Moreover, according to the contract, after than period the venue was to be transferred to the municipality in at least the same condition as when it had just been completed2. That guaranteed the stability of investments by the private investor during the whole life cycle of the venue. Conversely, in Russia a private company usually builds a sport venue and exploits it until it becomes inefficient, and then transfers it to the municipality.
During the period of PFI program existence, more than 700 projects for the total of £55 bln were implemented. The largest number of contracts was implemented before the crisis: in 2006 - 56 projects, in 2007 - 67 projects. Most projects were contracts with Healthcare Department, but Transportation Department leads in the volumes of contracts (Fig. 5).
Totally, since 1992 the implemented contracts in transportation amounted to £22.7 bln. Of them £16 bln are within one of the world largest PPP projects - reconstruction of the London Underground.
The projects in defense-industry complex are also richly financed. The government of Great Britain uses PPP projects for the delivery of armaments, military technology, training and housing.
2 Please refer to URL: http://www.sportengland.org.
21
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
The Department of environmental protection 23,8%
The Department of transportation
39,7%
The Department of local government
7,7%
The Department of health 13,3%
The Government 12,8%
The Department of education
2,7%
Fig. 5. PFI projects structure, by the administration bodies [37]
During the program functioning the Defense Ministry Headquaters in London were repaired, which cost £430 mln, military landing air refuellers were designed and built, and Skynet satellite system was launched (£2,7 and £1,08 bln accordingly).
Under the crisis, Great Britain revised its attitude towards the projects under this program. The practice of projects implementation showed that some of its features lead to inefficient implementation, which is connected with the slow financing, insufficient flexibility of the signed contracts, and obtaining of excess profit by private partners due to the lack of transparency in calculations. Besides, the recent years have shown the stable trend of increasing the average contract price in the sphere. Without the largest projects, like Euro Tunnel or London Underground, the average contract price in the recent 15 years was £50 mln [38].
The main problems of PFI program are related to the economic expediency of attracting private investors. After a number of critical comments, the United Kingdom Parliament carried out some calculations based on existing projects, which showed that the payments paid to the private investors as concession significantly increase the actual value of contract. For example, the calculation of the Royal Liverpool University hospital and Broad green hospital (in the vicinity of Liverpool) will result in the additional loss
of £175 mln, which will be paid by the state as concession during 30 years, compared to the original cost [39].
The economic inexpediency of PFI projects can be traced also in transportation infrastructure, in particular, toll roads. Their construction often causes public discontent. Many people in Great Britain consider the project of M6 Toll around Birmingham to be disastrous: only 25 % of the drivers use a toll road, while others prefers free roads. The foreign experience of organizing a toll roads system is shown in Table 2.
Calculations show that it is sometimes more profitable for the state to fully finance a project, obtaining the necessary funds from the finance market.
There were a lot of problems with the London Underground reconstruction, when “Metronet” consortium fail to modernize - the company went bankrupt, and the contract was transferred to the state authorities. Under the crisis the situation grew worse, when due to the lack of liquidity many projects were frozen, and the state had to allocate budget means to support companies participating in PPP projects.
After many debates in Parliament, estimations of advantages and problems in PFI program, it was modified, and a new package of documents appeared, which regulate the order of PFI projects formation. The procedures of signing and evaluating of contracts have been formal-
22
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Table 2
The foreign experience of organizing a toll roads system [40, с. 201]
Country Examples of projects Length Fare Mechanism of road construction and using
Spain 2,6 thousand km (0,39 %) About 8€ Toll roads belong to the state and are leased to private companies for 25 to 75 years, after which the road is either returned to the state or the concession is prolonged
France 7,9 thousand km (0,8 %) About 7€ Toll roads construction is financed from the budget or within concessions or partnership contracts
Great Britain Six-lane highway М6 Toll (2003) around Birmingham, length 43 km 43 km (0,0001 %) About 11€ Road was constructed by a private company Midland Expressway Ltd (MEL), under the 53-year long contract for the road construction and maintenance (then the road will become a state property)
USA 8,4 thousand km (0,13 %) About 4$ Toll roads (bridges, tunnels) in the USA are built with partial leverage and private investment (a private company constructs and maintains it during a certain period as its property, then the rod in transferred to the state)
Japan 9,2 thousand km (0,8 %) About 22€ Toll roads are constructed by a special construction corporation (privatized in 2005), mainly leveraged
China 133 thousand km (0,07 %) About 9€ There are «government” roads (built for credits given by banks to authorities), used as toll roads for 15 years, and “commercial” ones (built for corporations’ own and loan funds), used as toll roads for 25 years
ized, with the greater attention to the projects’ economic expediency, profit and risks.
Thus, the experience of Great Britain is ambiguous. On the one hand, there are plenty of good examples, such as an integral system of garbage recycling in the Isle of Wight, or building of retirement home in Surrey. But the private initiative program is criticized for the higher cost of such projects for the state.
France also has rich traditions of PPP. France is one of the world leaders in PPP sphere, it has much experience in PPP management and attracting investors, including into the regional and municipal infrastructure.
A distinctive feature of the French model of PPP development is that, in order to attract private investors, the state creates the so called Societies for mixed economy (Societe d'Economie Mixte, SEM), which are actually joint ventures. State or municipal bodies must have from 50 % to 85 % shares in these companies. According to the State Enterprises Federation (FedEpl), 1001 SEM was functioning in France in 2012. The main share of their capital assets belongs to the municipalities. The structure of enterprises by sector is shown in Fig. 6.
SEM can function in construction and reconstruction, as well as maintenance of industrial venues, and render certain public services.
The SEM mechanism feature is that private capital is not limited by territory, i.e. a project can be financed by investors from other regions or municipalities. This approach resulted in the French companies leading among foreign firm implementing PPP mechanisms.
Besides, France actively uses concessions in PPP practice, which differ from the “basic” Anglo-American
model in a number of significant features. For example, French laws forbid privatization by the concessionaire of the concessed municipal or state property, and stipulate the complex character of concession, when a concessionaire is in charge of both the concession elaboration and creation or modernization of the infrastructure and its exploitation [34, с. 41]. Besides, the “French model” provides only one tender for all works and services when selecting a private partner, while the Anglo-American model provides three tenders: for designing, for construction and for maintenance (or management).
There is no single law uniting all PPP forms in France. Each form is regulated by various normative-legal acts and administrative and civil norms (for example Law of France no. 2002-1094 of August 29, 2002, known as LOPSI, law no. 2002-1138 of September 9, 2002, known as LOPJ), which allow the private sector to participate in projecting, construction, financing and maintenance of venues for justice, law enforcement bodies, army and Defense Ministry). There is also an Enactment no. 2003-850 of September 4, 2003, titled “VEN Enactment”, which allows the private sector to participate in similar contract patterns in healthcare. Thus, the legal regime for concessions is based mainly on administrative law and the law adopted in 1993 [42].
As for PPP agreements, they were legally adopted by the government enactment in 2004. The law no. 2004-559 of June 17, 2004 introduced a new category of contracts -a contract of partnership («contrat de partenariat»), as a form of PPP eligible for any activity and any sector. Unlike concession contract, partnership contract provides not the complete transfer of risk, but sharing risks between a
23
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Fig. 6. SEM structure in France, by sector [41]
state body and its partner. The private partner’s remuneration often depends on the set tasks, and an individual can be exposed to large fines [43].
Several contract types are used in France according to their laws:
- partnership contracts (contrat de partenariat, CP);
- long-term rent contract with administration (bail emphyteotique administratif, BEA);
- long-term rent contract with hospitals (bail emphyteotique hospitalier, BEH);
- permission for temporary use of state property (autori-sations d’occupation temporaire du domaine public, AOT);
- permission for temporary use of state property with the right of redemption before contract termination, i.e. leasing (bail avec clause de rachat anticipe, LOA).
The contracts’ main features are shown in Table 3.
The Economy and Finance Ministry of France actively supports projects in the sphere of public-private partnership, for which in October 2004 the Mission for PPP support was formed (Mission d'appui a la realisation des contrats de partenariat publics prives, MAPPP). The Mission role is to render consultative and organizational assistance to elaboration and signing PPP contracts, elaboration of methodological of manuals on contracts signing. MAPPP expertise is obligatory when elaborating PPP projects, when the project is evaluated from economical point of view, as well as its influence on the state financial system. Besides, MAPPP controls the contract execution
Table 3
Features of PPP contracts implemented in France [44]
Features CP BEA/BEH AOT/LOA
Subject of contract Global contract on design, construction managing and servicing the asset Mainly construction; other services are limited Connected with the general mission and obliges the private partner to construct the venue and enables its redemption
Sectors All Court system, police, healthcare, social housing, fire and rescue services Court system, police, defense
Providing authority All public sector Local bodies and medical associations State and local bodies
Ownership of project assets State Is transferred to the private partner for the contract period Is transferred to the private partner for the contract period
Revenue of the private partner State payment (with possibility to take some payments from the consumers) State payment State payment
Project design Can be made by the state or private partner Is made by the private partner Is made by the private partner
Project duration The period of asset life cycle (maximum 99 years) From 18 to 99 years Maximum 70 years
24
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
in first few months, and, if necessary, can make proposals on changing the project regulations3.
During the Mission functioning (for January 1, 2013), 160 partnership contracts were signed, more than 330 BEA agreements, 36 BEH agreements, 18 AOT/ LOA contracts.
The average value of local contracts was €26 mln, of state contracts - €250 mln, about 80 % of all contracts were implemented by the local self-government bodies [45]. The volume of annual future state investments within partnerships is evaluated as about €90 bln, or 5% of the total value of state investments. The total value of investment in 2005-2011 was €12 bln (Fig. 7).
The largest projects in that period include:
- ExoTaxe project (tariffing system for trucks) - €1 bln;
- high-speed railway Pays de Loire - €3,4 bln;
- high-speed railway Tours - Bordeaux - €7,8 bln;
- building of a new Headquarters of Defense Ministry Balardgon - €992 mln.
Also, PPP projects in France appeared to be especially successful in the sphere of new power generating systems construction. For example, PPP mechanism is actively used by AREVA and EDF companies when building nuclear power stations, both in France and abroad. A specific feature of such projects is the possibility to implement the changeable financing structure at various stages of the project. It ensures financial flexibility, possibility to refinance the debts and a more efficient financing long-term [12].
However, like in Great Britain, there have been fails in France. They are connected with the construction of Parliament building in Scotland. The cost of the building constantly grew, which finally caused problems with financing and resulted it the fail of the whole project.
In general, evaluating the PPP functioning in France, we can highlight its high efficiency. The largest PPP project in France was the one implemented in cooperation with Great Britain - construction of Euro Tunnel. However, the efficiency of the project has been long questioned - the cost overrun during construction was 80%, which led to the bankruptcy of several organizations, while financing costs exceeded the planned ones by 140 %, and the income is less than a half of the expected. However, in this case the cost overrun was mainly due to the changes in the requirements of inter-governmental commission on safety.
PPP in France is rather efficient, which is due to the thorough estimation of each project, serious control of the state, and priority of state financing.
Germany started PPP projects much later than the above-mentioned states - since 2003. The high concentration and strong state power determined the inertia in transferring some state functions to private business. However, Germany is similar to Russia in its federative structure and budget system structure, thus the German experience can be especially valuable for Russia.
German banks and other financial institutions take part in PPP development. German legislators have realized that PPP projects are beneficial both for the state and the
vsssssa investments ^^^number of contracts
Fig. 7. Dynamics of the number of contracts and investment volume in PPP in France [45]
3 Please refer to URL: http://www.economie.gouv.fr/ppp/v/ mission-dappui.
25
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
entrepreneurs. The enterprises, interested in PPP, have noticed that German legislative norms are insufficient. To improve the legislative base, the Law was adopted “On promoting public-private partnerships and improving the general legal conditions for them”. This law amends some provisions of taxation and budgeting laws, and norms regulating allocation of state orders and financing of motorways constriction with private investments. PPPs engaged in motorway construction can be refinanced not only through tolling according to public law, but also according to civil law. For the broader implementation of PPP model, the budget law now has a provision that economic expediency should be calculated with the account of risks distribution [46].
The basis for PPP conception development in Germany is the branched infrastructure of PPP support centers at both subfederal and federal levels. At federal level such center - OPP Deutschland AG (Partnerschaften Deutschland) - was created in November 2008. It is an independent consulting company under the aegis of the Federal Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport and Construction.
Federal, subfederal and local authorities form the core of the public owner OPP Deutschland AG; they hold about 57 % of the shares.
The consulting center functions include [47]:
1) project segment. It includes measures connected with preparation, organization and implementation of particular projects with PPP mechanisms. According to the general conception, adopted in Germany, the centers’ activity cannot be connected with independent implementation of any projects. Their participation is limited to consultations to the state authorities. However, under the lack of experience of projects elaboration and implementation, the state can obtain assistance from the Center.
2) consultative segment. The Center consults federal and local authorities on the issues of project implementation and investment attraction. Most often OPP Deutschland AG acts as an independent expert, estimating the project and probability of its implementation at a particular managerial level. As a result, the state authorities reimburse the information gap when implementing PPP projects.
3) scientific-methodological segment. As PPP projects are implemented within a legal framework which significantly differs from the regular state purchases, the state authorities often cannot trace the trends of PPP development in their country and abroad. Thus the functions of researching the acute achievements in the sphere are given to the Center. It elaborates methodological recommendations on implementing various PPP models, and
evaluates them in accordance with sector features of the projects. For example, the PPP support Center elaborated recommendations for ensuring the PPP projects transparency, evaluated their life expectancy in medical sphere, and created the standard model of technical-economic support for the project [48].
The main PPP models, implemented in Germany, are:
1. Receiver model (Е model). A private contractor designs, constructs and finances the project on a land lot, which belongs to them. The real estate is further used by a state body. After the contract termination the property right for the land lot is transferred to the state. The contractor’s revenue is formed of the regular state payments, including the payments for the land lot, and possible payments for profit.
2. Owner model (I model). A private contractor designs, constructs and finances the project, like real estate or road construction, on a land lot, which belongs to the state. The contractor’s revenue is formed of the regular state payments. This model is the most topical nowadays. According to OPP Deutschland AG, 81% of the value of all PPP projects are comprised in this form.
3. Leasing model (L model). A contractor not only constructs but also manages the venue. The contract provides the opportunity for the state to redeem the venue after the contract termination. However, the rent can be prolonged. During the contract period the contractor is paid leasing payments, which include the expenses for construction and depreciation, as well as the profit rate stipulated in the contract.
4. Rent model (Мmodel). A private contractor designs, constructs and manages the venue. This model differs from the leasing model project by the absence of the right for venue redemption. In this case, the rent payments include payments for using the property and for managing the venue, including personnel, communications, etc.
5. Concession model (К model). A private contractor is obliged to design, construct or reconstruct the venue, and then to render certain services to the venue users. The contractor’s revenue is formed from the users’ means (entrance tickets, customs duties, parking fees, transport fees). Additional payments may be made by the state.
6. Joint venture (G model). A private contractor and a state construct and use the venue jointly. As a rule, other contract models are used in combination with this one [49].
When characterizing the PPP market in Germany, one can observe the constant increase of the number of implemented projects. Though 2012-2013 were not so successful, in 2014 the growth rate stopped falling (Fig. 8).
26
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Г Л
volume of projects
number of projects cumulative
number of projects implemented in year
V_________________________________________________________________________________________J
Fig. 8. Dynamics of PPP contract values in Germany [50]
Totally since 2002 the implemented projects value amounted to over €8 bln, €4.9 of which in above-ground construction, and the rest in under-ground one. The reduction of the number of contracts in 2012 was largely due to the launching of broad federal programs in 2011, when the average project cost was more than €70 mln. In general, the number of projects in Germany reduced after the 2008-2009 crisis, which is characteristic for most countries. The trend has been kept in the later years. For example, in 2014 (the first 10 months) only 5 contracts were signed, with the total value almost €1 bln.
By the projects structure, the projects prevail, which are connected with construction of schools, kindergartens, administrative buildings and cultural and sports venues (Fig. 9).
Concessions are the main form of cooperation between education and business. For example, since 2005 one of the branches of a construction company Hochtief finances the restoration of the Center for professional-technical training in Leverkusen. In future the company will manage the Center, which includes three complexes and has the status of a historical monument. The contract value is about €70 mln [51].
New construction is the domain in PPP projects, which is confirmed by the PPP models implemented in Germany. Construction is carried out mainly in the social sphere - in education the value of implemented contracts amounts to €1.8 bln, in culture and sport - €740 mln, in healthcare - €770 mln. Among the largest and successful projects implemented in Germany since 2003 are the following:
- construction of the Germany largest proton therapy center in Essen. The contract value was €132 mln. The center was transferred under private management for 15 years, the supposed saving rate is 20 %. The project was completed in 2010, since then 2200 patients are treated there annually;
- construction and reconstruction of 14 professional schools in Hamburg. The contract value was €320 mln, the project was completed in 2012. The project provides for the private management within 30 years;
- construction of a motorway no. 1 (Hansalinie) - one of the German busiest motorways. The length of the 6-lane road is 72,5 km, the construction cost is €650 mln. The contractor’s expenses are refinanced by transferring the road to them for 30 years with the right to receive toll;
27
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Fig. 9. Structure of PPP projects implemented in Germany in 2003-2014 [50]
- reconstruction of the German ;largest airport in Frankfort on the Main. The project provided for the preliminary privatization - shares emission, 29 % of which were sold in the stock exchange (similar to IPO). Other shares belong to the State of Hesse (32,1 %), Frankfort city (20,5 %) and the state (18,4 %). The joint stock company “Fraport” preserved the control of public investors, but it is “a private shareholder” of other German airports, thus the “private” party of the partnerships is represented by the structure with predominantly state capital [52, с. 82].
When viewing the projects efficiency rate, one can notice some characteristic features. The economic efficiency changes with the project size. The projects with investment costs of less than €10 mln allow to save 12 % on average, with costs of €10 to €25 mln - about 14,4 %. The projects with costs of over €25 mln save 13,5 % on average, and over €50 mln - 16,7 %. This proves the existence of scale effect [53].
In general, we can state that Germany occupies the third position by the number of projects implemented in Europe, after Great Britain and France.
Having analyzed the foreign experience of PPP implementing, we can state the two types of PPP projects. The first one presupposes that a private partner takes the business risks, and after the contract termination gains profit from the venue exploitation. Under the second form, all risks are taken by the state, and it pays the agreed sum for the venue construction and maintenance.
Conclusions
Thus, at the modern stage of PPP mechanism development abroad, we can state that this tool is viewed to a less extent as a means of non-budget funds attraction; to a larger extent its implementation is considered to be a means of increasing the funds efficiency.
Thus, the experience of the countries with the best developed public-private partnership mechanisms, like France, Great Britain and Germany, shows, that Europe has rich traditions of attracting private business to state constriction. The recent trend is attracting the small and middle business. Such opportunities are provided mainly at municipal level, as the projects value is comparatively low there. The large freedom of private partners in Great Britain has resulted in revision of the Parliament’s attitude towards the PPP projects support program. In France and Germany the projects are more efficient, because the state more significantly participates in the projects implementation, controlling them at every stage of implementation and carrying out the complex analysis of the contract prospects.
References
1. Aschauer, D. A. Is public expenditure productive? Journal of monetary economics, 1989, vol. 23, no. 2. pp. 177-200.
2. Bain, R. Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts. Transportation, 2009, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 469-482.
28
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
3. Bonaccorsi, A., Lipparini, A. Strategic partnerships in new product development: an Italian case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1994, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 134-145.
4. Bytheway, A., Dhillon, G. Significance of partnerships in the management of interorganisational systems. International Journal of Information Management, 1996, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 369-380.
5. Kwak, Y H., Chih, Y, Ibbs, C. W. Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 2009, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 51-78.
6. De Meyer, A. Using strategic partnerships to create a sustainable competitive position for hi-tech start-up firms. R&D Management, 1999, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 323-328.
7. Geddes, M. Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2000, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 782-800.
8. Hill, C.T., Roessner J.D. New directions in federal laboratory partnerships with industry. Science and public policy, 1998, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 297-304.
9. Jezierski, L. Neighborhoods and public-private partnerships in Pittsburgh. Urban Affairs Review, 1990, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 217-249.
10. Laffont, J.-J., Tirole, J. Auctioning incentive contracts. The Journal of Political Economy, 1987, pp. 921-937.
11. Metzger, J. T. Remaking the growth coalition: The Pittsburgh partnership for neighborhood development. Economic Development Quarterly, 1998, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 12-29.
12. Murphy, P. Business Models For Financing Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA Working Group on Alternative Contracting and Ownership Practices for Nuclear Power Plants, 2010.
13. Riordan, M. H., Sappington D. E. Awarding monopoly franchises. The American Economic Review, 1987, pp. 375-387.
14. Roll M., Verbeke A. Financing of the trans-European high-speed rail networks: New forms of public-private partnerships. European Management Journal, 1998, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 706-713.
15. Strange, I. Directing the show? Business leaders, local partnership, and economic regeneration in Sheffield. Environment and Planning, 1997, vol. 15, pp. 1-18.
16. Walker, R., Smith, T. E. Tropical Deforestation And Forest Management Under The System Of Concession Logging: A Decision-Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Regional Science, 1993, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 387-419.
17. Bucove, B., Putnam, W., McNerney, W., Metcalf, G., Paley, M. Public-private partnership: its influence upon official and nonofficial health agencies. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1969, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 1223.
18. Dunlop, J. T. Public-private partnership: problems and opportunities. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1969, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 1140.
19. Linder, S. H. Coming to terms with the public-private partnership a grammar of multiple meanings. American behavioral scientist, 1999, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 35-51.
20. Stephenson, M. O. Whither The Public-Private Partnership A Critical Overview. Urban Affairs Review, 1991, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 109-127.
21. Yeh, A. G.-O. Public and private partnership in urban redevelopment in Hong Kong. Third World Planning Review, 1990, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 361.
22. Cheung, E., Chan, A. P. Revitalizing Historic Buildings through a Partnership Scheme: Innovative Form of Social Public-Private Partnership. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 2013, vol. 140, no. 1.
23. Ke, Y, Wang, S., Chan, A. P., Lam, P. T. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public-private partnership (PPP) projects. International Journal of Project Management, 2010, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 482-492.
24. Tang, L., Shen, Q., Cheng, E. W. A review of studies on Public-Private Partnership projects in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 2010, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 683-694.
25. Piper, D. EPEC (European PPP Expertise Centre). European PPP Report, 2009.
26. Andrianov, V D. Instituty razvitiya i ikh rol' v realizatsii proektov gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva, available at: http://www.pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/files/events/kafe-dra_2011/12.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
27. Lokhtina, L. K., Batuev, E. D. Ponyatie i sushchnost' gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva. Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya, available at: http://vestnik.mednet.ru (accessed: 27.05.2015).
28. Market Update: Review of the European PPP Market in 2012. Book Market Update: Review of the European PPP Market in 2012. EditorEuropean PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC), 2010.
29. Rozhkova, S. Analiz mirovogo opyta ispol'zovaniya gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva v razlichnykh otraslyakh ekonomiki (Analysis of the global implementation of public-private partnership in various sectors of economy). RTsB, 2008, vol. 1, pp. 51.
30. Bar'ery razvitiya mekhanizma GChP v Rossii (Barriers of PPP mechanism development in Russia). Moscow: NPF «Ekspertnyy institut», 2010.
31. Belitskaya, A. V. Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie otnosh-eniy gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva (State regulation of public-private partnership). Zakon, 2010, no. 10, pp. 112-119.
32. Reznichenko, N. V. Sozdanie gosudarstvennykh organov po razvitiyu kontseptsii GChP na federal'nom i regional'nom urovnyakh vlasti: organizatsionnye struktury (Forming the state bodies for developing the public-private partnership concept at federal and regional levels of power: organizational structures), available at: http://ppp.atomio.ru/userfiles/upload/files/PPP%20 units_ReznichenkoNV.pdf.
29
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
33. Ayrapetyan, M. S. Zarubezhnyy opyt ispol'zovaniya gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva (ch. 2) (Foreign experience of implementing the public-private partnership (part 2)), available at: http://www.g-k-h.ru/directory/articles/736088 (accessed: 17.05.2015).
34. Gladov, A. V., Isupov, A.M., Martyshkin, D.V. et al. Zarubezhnyy opyt realizatsii gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva: obshchaya kharakteristika i organizatsionno-institutsional'nye osnovy (Foreign experience of implementing the public-private partnership: general charactristics and organizational-institutional bases). VestnikSamGU, 2008, no. 7.
35. Market Update: Review of European PPP Market in 2012, 2011. EPEC, available at: http://www.eib.org/epec/index.htm (accessed: 17.05.2015).
36. Proekt «Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo v sotsial'noy sfere - rasprostranenie opyta Velikobritanii i Sankt-Peterburga» (Project “Public-private partnership in social sphere - spreadinng the experience of Great Britain and Saint Petersburg”), available at: http://www.ppp.leontief-centre.ru/ UserFiles/Files/REPORT%20PRAC.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
37. PFI data summary: HM Treasury, available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/pfi-projects-data (accessed: 17.05.2015).
38. O sisteme gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva v Velikobritanii (On the system of public-private partnership in Great Britain), available at: http://pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/ files/PPP%20in%20foring%20country/GB_PPP.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
39. Private Finance Initiative - Treasury. Publications of Parliament UK available at: http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/114606.htm#a7 (accessed: 17.05.2015).
40. Podgornov, V. S. Zarubezhnyy i otechestvennyy opyt realizatsii proektov stroitel'stva platnykh avtodorog na osnove gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva (Foreign and domestic experience of implementing the projects of building the payable highways within the public-private partnership). Transportnoe delo Rossii, 2012, vol. 6-2, pp. 200-202.
41. Federatsiya gosudarstvennykh predpriyatiy Frantsii (Federation of state enterprises in France), available at: http:// www.lesepl.fr/Anglais.php (accessed: 17.05.2015).
42. Les principales formes contractuelles de PPP, available at: http://www.vinci-concessions.fr/2011/04/les-principales-formes-contractuelles-de-ppp/ (accessed: 17.05.2015).
43. Bezancon, X., Bergere, F., Fornacciari, M. Le guide operationnel des PPP: Conditions du recours au partenariat public-prive, Passation du contrat, Risques et matrices des risques, Questions fiscales et comptables. Broche-2 septembre, 2009, pp. 38.
44. France: PPP units and related institutional framework. EPEC, 2012, available at: http://www.economie.gouv.fr/ files/files/directions_services/ppp/epec_france.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
45. Otchet o rabote Missii podderzhki GChP (Report on the performance of the public-private partnership support), available at: http://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/ ppp/rapport_activite_2011.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
46. Knyupfer, V. Gosudarstvenno-chastnye partnerstva (GChP) v kontekste ispol'zovaniya sovremennykh form upravleniya kompleksami nedvizhimosti (Public-private partnerships (PPP) in the context of implementing the modern forms of real estate management), available at: http://www. duma.gov.ru/sobstven/analysis/corporation/161007/5knupfer. htm (accessed: 17.05.2015).
47. Levin, I. G. Podderzhka gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva - kak eto rabotaet v Germanii (Support of public-private partnership - how it works in Germany), available at: http://pppcenter.ru/assets/files/docs/Levin_Ilya_The%20 support%20of%20PPP_part1.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
48. Fundamental research OPP Deutschland AG, available at: http://www.partnerschaften-deutschland.de/grundlagenarbeit/ abgeschlossene-grundlagenarbeiten/ (accessed: 17.05.2015).
49. Bank dannykh proektov GChP Germanii (Data bank of public-private partnership projects in Germany), available at: http://www.ppp-projektdatenbank.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ Downloads/130514_Projektdatenbank_Projekte_Anwendgebiet. png (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
50. Godovoy otchet OPP Deutschland AG o razvitii rynka GChP v 1 polugodii 2014 g. (Annual report of OPP Deutschland AG on the public-private partnership market development in the 1 half of 2014), available at: http://www. partnerschaften-deutschland.de/fileadmin/Daten/OEPP-Markt/OEPP-Marktzahlen/140829_OEPP_Deutschland_ Halbjahresbericht_2014.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
51. Tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiya gosudarstvenno-chastnogo partnerstva v Rossii: analiticheskiy material (Trends and prospects of public-private partnership development in Russia: analytical material). Deloyt, 2009.
52. Deryabina, M. A. Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo: teoriya i praktika (Public-private partnership: theory and practice). Voprosy ekonomiki, 2008, vol. 8, pp. 61-107.
53. Kuz'min, V A. Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo: opyt realizatsii mekhanizma v Germanii i vozmozhnosti ego ispol'zovaniya v Rossii (Public-private partnership: experience of implementation of the mechanism in Germany and possibility to use it in Russia), available at: http://www.pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/ upload/files/PPP%20in%20foring%20country/Kuzmin_PPP_ Germany.pdf (accessed: 17.05.2015).
Received 24.04.15 © Gafurova G. T., Akhmetshina E. R., 2015
30
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
Information about the authors
Gafurova Gulnara Talgatovna, PhD (Economics), Associate Professor of the Finance and Credit Department, Institute of Economics, Management and Law (Kazan)
Address: 42 Moskovskaya Str., 420111, Kazan E-mail: gtgafurova@rambler.ru
Akhmetshina Elvira Raisovna, PhD (Economics), Associate Professor of the Department of Economics Methodology and History, Institute of Management, Economics and Finance of Kazan (Volga region) Federal University Address: 18 Kremlevskaya Str., 420008, Kazan E-mail: kiyamova-ksfei09@yandex.ru
( ; л
For citation: Gafurova G.T., Akhmetshina E.R. Foreign experience of state-private partnership mechanisms development. Aktual’niyeproblemy ekonomiki iprava, 2015, no. 2, pp. 17-33.
V______________________________________________________________________________________________J
УДК 338.2:334.7
Г. Т. ГАФУРОВА,
кандидат экономических наук, доцент
Институт экономики, управления и права (г. Казань), Россия,
Э. Р АХМЕТШИНА,
кандидат экономических наук, ассистент
Институт управления, экономики и финансов Казанского (Приволжского) федерального университета, г. Казань, Россия
ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЙ ОПЫТ РАЗВИТИЯ МЕХАНИЗМОВ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННО-ЧАСТНОГО ПАРТНЕРСТВА
Цель: изучить опыт развитых европейских стран по организации государственно-частного партнерства.
Методы: в работе использованы методы теоретического и исследования: анализ, обобщение, а также исторический метод.
Результаты: на основе изучения опыта Великобритании, Франции и Германии выявлены сильные и слабые стороны различных моделей государственно-частного партнерства, а также особенности их организации в конкретных экономико-исторических условиях.
Научная новизна: в статье впервые систематизированы отраслевые и финансовые особенности организации проектов государственночастного партнерства в различных экономических системах.
Практическая значимость: основные положения и выводы статьи могут быть использованы в разработке государственной политики России в области создания и финансирования проектов государственно-частного партнерства.
Ключевые слова: государственно-частное партнерство; государственная политика; Великобритания; Франция; Германия; Российская Федерация; институты развития; уровень экономического развития; развитые страны; развивающиеся страны; зарубежный опыт.
Список литературы
1. Aschauer D. A. Is public expenditure productive? // Journal of monetary economics. 1989. Vol. 23. No. 2. Pp. 177-200.
2. Bain R. Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts // Transportation. 2009. Vol. 36. No. 5. Pp. 469-482.
3. Bonaccorsi A., Lipparini A. Strategic partnerships in new product development: an Italian case study // Journal of Product Innovation Management. 1994. Vol. 11. No. 2. Pp. 134-145.
4. Bytheway A., Dhillon G. Significance of partnerships in the management of interorganisational systems // International Journal of Information Management, 1996. Vol. 16. No. 5. Pp. 369-380.
5. Kwak Y.H., Chih Y., Ibbs, C.W. Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development // California Management Review. 2009. Vol. 51. No. 2. Pp. 51-78.
6. De Meyer A. Using strategic partnerships to create a sustainable competitive position for hi-tech start-up firms // R&D Management. 1999. Vol. 29. No. 4. Pp. 323-328.
7. Geddes M. Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership // International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2000. Vol. 24. No. 4. Pp. 782-800.
8. Hill C.T., Roessner J.D. New directions in federal laboratory partnerships with industry // Science and public policy. 1998. Vol. 25. No. 5. Pp. 297-304.
9. Jezierski L. Neighborhoods and public-private partnerships in Pittsburgh // Urban Affairs Review. 1990. Vol. 26. No. 2. Pp. 217-249.
10. Laffont J.-J., Tirole J. Auctioning incentive contracts // The Journal of Political Economy. 1987. Pp. 921-937.
31
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
11. Metzger J. T. Remaking the growth coalition: The Pittsburgh partnership for neighborhood development // Economic Development Quarterly. 1998. Vol. 12. No. 1. Pp. 12-29.
12. Murphy P. Business Models For Financing Nuclear Power Plants // IAEA Working Group on Alternative Contracting and Ownership Practices for Nuclear Power Plants. 2010.
13. Riordan M. H., Sappington D. E. Awarding monopoly franchises // The American Economic Review. 1987. Pp. 375-387.
14. Roll M., Verbeke A. Financing of the trans-European high-speed rail networks: New forms of public-private partnerships // European Management Journal. 1998. Vol. 16. No. 6. Pp. 706-713.
15. Strange I. Directing the show? Business leaders, local partnership, and economic regeneration in Sheffield // Environment and Planning. 1997. Vol. 15. Pp. 1-18.
16. Walker R., Smith T. E. Tropical Deforestation And Forest Management Under The System Of Concession Logging: A Decision-Theoretic Analysis // Journal of Regional Science. 1993. Vol. 33. No. 3. Pp. 387-419.
17. Bucove B., Putnam W., McNerney W., Metcalf G., Paley M. Public-private partnership: its influence upon official and nonofficial health agencies // Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 1969. Vol. 45. No. 11. Pp. 1223.
18. Dunlop J. T. Public-private partnership: problems and opportunities // Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 1969. Vol. 45. No. 11. Pp. 1140.
19. Linder S. H. Coming to terms with the public-private partnership a grammar of multiple meanings // American behavioral scientist. 1999. Vol. 43. No. 1. Pp. 35-51.
20. Stephenson M.O. Whither The Public-Private Partnership A Critical Overview // Urban Affairs Review. 1991. Vol. 27. No. 1. Pp. 109-127.
21. Yeh A. G.-O. Public and private partnership in urban redevelopment in Hong Kong // Third World Planning Review. 1990. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 361.
22. Cheung E., Chan A.P. Revitalizing Historic Buildings through a Partnership Scheme: Innovative Form of Social Public-Private Partnership // Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2013. Vol. 140. No. 1.
23. Ke Y., Wang S., Chan A. P., Lam P. T. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public-private partnership (PPP) projects // International Journal of Project Management. 2010. Vol. 28. No. 5. Pp. 482-492.
24. Tang L., Shen Q., Cheng E.W. A review of studies on Public-Private Partnership projects in the construction industry // International Journal of Project Management. 2010. Vol. 28. No. 7. Pp. 683-694.
25. Piper D. EPEC (European PPP Expertise Centre) // European PPP Report. 2009.
26. URL: http://www.pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/files/events/kafedra_2011/12.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
27. URL: http://vestnik.mednet.ru (дата обращения: 27.05.2015).
28. Market Update: Review of the European PPP Market in 2012. Book Market Update: Review of the European PPP Market in 2012 // EditorEuropean PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC). 2010.
29. Рожкова С. Анализ мирового использования государственно-частного партнерства в различных отраслях экономики // РТсБ. 2008. Т. 1. С. 51.
30. Барьеры развития механизма ГЧП в России. Москва: НПФ «Экспертный институт», 2010.
31. Белицкая А.В. Государственное регулирование отношений государственно-частного партнерства // Закон. 2010. №» 10. С. 112-119.
32. Резниченко Н.В. Создание государственных органов по развитию концепции ГЧП на федеральном и региональном уровнях власти: организационные структуры. URL: http://ppp.atomio.ru/userfiles/upload/files/PPP%20units_ReznichenkoNV.pdf.
33. Айрапетян М.С. Зарубежный опыт использования государственно-частного партнерства (ч. 2). URL: http://www.g-k-h.ru/directory/ articles/736088 (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
34. Гладов А. В., Юсупов А.М., Мартышкин Д.В. Зарубежный опыт реализации государственно-частного партнерства: общая характеристика и организационно-институциональные основы // Вестник СамГУ 2008. № 7.
35. Market Update: Review of European PPP Market in 2012, 2011 // EPEC. URL: http://www.eib.org/epec/index.htm (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
36. Проект «Государственно-частное партнерство в социальной сфере - распространение опыта Великобритании и Санкт-Петербурга». URL: http://www.ppp.leontief-centre.ru/UserFiles/Files/REPORT%20PRAC.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
37. PFI data summary: HM Treasury. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pfi-projects-data (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
38. О системе государственно-частного партнерства в Великобритании. URL: http://pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/files/PPP%20in%20 foring%20country/GB_PPP.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
39. Private Finance Initiative - Treasury // Publications of Parliament UK. URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/ cmtreasy/1146/114606.htm#a7 (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
40. Подгонов В.С. Зарубежный и отечественный опыт реализации проектов строительства платных автодорог на основе государственно-частного партнерства // Транспортное дело России. 2012. Т. 6-2. С. 200-202.
41. Федерация государственных предприятий Франции. URL: http://www.lesepl.fr/Anglais.php (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
42. Les principales formes contractuelles de PPP. URL: http://www.vinci-concessions.fr/2011/04/les-principales-formes-contractuelles-de-ppp/ (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
43. Bezancon X., Bergere F., Fornacciari M. Le guide operationnel des PPP: Conditions du recours au partenariat public-prive, Passation du contrat, Risques et matrices des risques, Questions fiscales et comptables // Broche-2 septembre. 2009. С. 38.
44. France: PPP units and related institutional framework // EPEC. 2012. URL: http://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/ ppp/epec_france.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
45. Отчет о работе Миссии поддержки ГЧП. URL: http://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/ppp/rapport_activite_2011. pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
32
Экономика и управление народным хозяйством Economics and economic management
Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2 Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2015. No. 2
46. Кнюпфер В. Государственно-частные партнерства (ГЧП) в контексте использования современных форм управления комплексами недвижимости. URL: http://www.duma.gov.ru/sobstven/analysis/corporation/161007/5knupfer.htm (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
47. Левин И.Г. Поддержка государственно-частного партнерства - как это работает в Германии. URL: http://pppcenter.ru/assets/files/ docs/Levin_nya_The%20support%20of%20PPP_part1.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
48. Fundamental research OPP Deutschland AG. URL: http://www.partnerschaften-deutschland.de/grundlagenarbeit/abgeschlossene-grund-lagenarbeiten/ (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
49. Банк данных проектов ГЧП Германии. URL: http://www.ppp-projektdatenbank.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/130514_Projek-tdatenbank_Projekte_Anwendgebiet.png (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
50. Годовой отчет OPP Deutschland AG о развитии рынка ГЧП в 1 полугодии 2014 г. URL: http://www.partnerschaften-deutschland.de/ fileadmin/Daten/OEPP-Markt/OEPP-Marktzahlen/140829_OEPP_Deutschland_Halbjahresbericht_2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
51. Тенденции и перспективы развития государственно-частного партнерства в России: аналитический материал // Deloyt. 2009.
52. Дерябина М.А. Государственно-частное партнерство: теория и практика // Вопросы экономики. 2008. № 8. С. 61-107.
53. Кузьмин В.А. Государственно-частное партнерство: опыт реализации механизма в Германии и возможности его использования в России. URL: http://www.pppinrussia.ru/userfiles/upload/files/PPP%20in%20foring%20country/Kuzmin_PPP_Germany.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2015).
В редакцию материал поступил 24.04.15
Информация об авторах
Гафурова Гульнара Талгатовна, кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры финансов и кредита, Институт экономики, управления и права (г. Казань)
Адрес: 420111, г. Казань, ул. Московская, 42 E-mail: gtgafurova@rambler.ru
Ахметшина Эльвира Раисовна, кандидат экономических наук, ассистент кафедры экономической методологии и истории Института управления, экономики и финансов, Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет Адрес: 420008, г. Казань, ул. Кремлевская, 18 E-mail: kiyamova-ksfei09@yandex.ru
Г л
Как цитировать статью: Г афурова Г.Т., Ахметшина Э.Р. Зарубежный опыт развития механизмов государственно-частного партнерства // Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2015. № 2. С. 17-33.
V_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________J
© Гафурова Г. Т., Ахметшина Э. Р, 2015
33
